New London newcomer wants to keep pig as pet, neighbors say no

BY KARYN SPORY

Mt. Pleasant News

If it oinks like a pig and roots like a pig, can the pig be considered a pet and not livestock?

That?s one of the questions facing the New London City Council following the its regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday night. One of the actionable items on the agenda was deciding if a teacup/pot-bellied pig could reside within city limits.

?My children have raised this piggy and they would be very heartbroken if she wasn?t allowed to come with us,? said Jessica Garrels. Garrels is planning to move to 104 Orchard Lane at the end of the month. ?My pig is a family pet, she is spayed and fully grown at about 18 inches tall and about 75 pounds.?

?I have assured (the Osborne?s) that if the council approves my request, I would do my best to keep (the pig) out of their hair,? she said. ?I would try to be a courteous neighbor.?

Garrels presented the council with pictures of her pig showing size comparison with her dog, Olaf, a five-gallon bucket and a baseball bat.

New London City Code 55.05 states it is unlawful for persons to keep livestock within the City except by written consent of the Council or except in compliance with the City?s zoning regulations. Within the same set of codes, livestock is described as ?an animal belonging to the bovine, caprine, equine, ovine or procine species, ostriches, reheas and emus; farm deer as defined in Section 170.1 of the Code of Iowa; or poultry.?

?I know under the city ordinance my pig is a pig, but my mini-teacup pot-bellied pig is known as a micro pig and they are bred to serve as pets,? said Garrels.

Garrels added that livestock is described as an animal that is bred for consumption, profit and sale, which she said her pig was bread to be a pet.

?They are intelligent animals and can be housetrained, which mine is. As far as rooting, I can get a hook or pig nose ring so she can?t do that,? she said.

Garrels stated that if neighbors were concerned with the animal, she would be able to keep it mostly in the house.

Ron and Karen Osborne, who reside at 102 Orchard Lane, both spoke during the open session to ask the council reject this request.

?To be honest, this agenda item caught me by surprise. Ms. Garrels posted a Facebook message to me on Jan. 11, stating she would be moving back to the property on March 1, and she would like to bring a pig that would be kept in the yard,? Karen read from a prepared statement. ?In that message, Ms. Garrels stated, and I quote, ?would not bring it up to the city council if you or Ron had an issue with it.??

Karen said she and her husband had a lengthy discussion about the pig and decided it was not an animal they would want to have next door. ?I?m concerned about the smell a pig, even a small pig, emits,? she said, added she was informed that Garrels has four dogs that would also be on the property.

Karen added she and her husband were also concerned about the noise the pig might make and the animal rooting under the fence. ?Finally, I?m afraid of something labeled as livestock being kept within city limits as it might lead to more requests,? said Karen.

Karen said she mailed a letter back to Garrels explaining their decision and was surprised to see the item on the agenda.

Ron asked the council to table the item. ?I would like the opportunity to discuss this with you fully. I ask the council set a public hearing or other opportunity to speak to this matter at a later date,? he said.

Eric Gratz, who resides at 107 Orchard Lane, said he is opposed to the pig moving in next door. ?I enjoy my time outside, and the piece and quiet,? he said. ?It?s already in code that it?s not allowed, I just wish that could be enforced.?

The council decided to table the matter for further research and discussion.

The council?s next meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 1, at 5:30 p.m., at City Hall. More stories from Tuesday night?s meeting will be published in tomorrow?s issue of The News.